Eternal hell or annihillation make no sense

[Ajax]

I think perhaps you are being pedantic, about the meaning of 'soul'.
We have SOS, as in 'save our souls', for example.

SOS, when it was first agreed upon by the International Radio Telegraphic Convention in 1906, was merely a distinctive and easy to remember Morse code sequence ( three dots/three dashes/three dots) and was initially not an abbreviation. Later in popular usage it became associated with mnemonic phrases such as "Save Our Souls" and "Save Our Ship".
In the beginning of the previous century, almost everybody thought we have a "soul", but it really meant "save ourselves (bodies)".
If you believe that the soul is immortal, you don't need to save it from disasters.

Bodies?
What about when a person has been in the grave for centuries?
Where is the 'body' then?

Then how did the rich man recognized Lazarus and Abraham according to Jesus parable? (Luke 16:22)
How did the dead saints resurrect In Matthew's story and went into the holy city and appeared to many? (Matthew 27:52)

I see the word 'soul' as applying to the inner person, and NOT the body.
Yes, G-d can make our bodies over & over, as it pleases Him, but our innermost self is unique.

There is no inner person. Our brain with approximately 86 billion neurons, is the center controlling station of all our functions including feelings.
In fact this invisible, intangible, odorless, vague and unproven item called "soul" is pretty useless, because science has proven that all it's supposed attributes are performed by the brain.

 

[Ajax]

Something is not necessarily true just because scholars and historians believe it is true.
That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

That's not argumentum ad populum. It's an expert's advice.
Imagine that someone has a disease. Everybody in his surroundings tells him is nothing serious., so he decides to check it with 50 doctors and all of them find out exactly what he suffers from. Can this this be considered argumentum ad populum?
Now substitute doctors with scholars and historians....

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no inner person..

Well, that is demonstrably untrue .. what is "character" ?
..and what is a "person"? etc. etc.

For example, you are talking to "me", and not the piece of meat called a brain.

In fact this invisible, intangible, odorless, vague and unproven item called "soul" is pretty useless..

Not at all .. all creatures have a personality .. a body without a conscious personality would
be useless.

 

[Ajax]

Can you cite some verses from the Torah that say that someone had to pay for our sins?

No but Christianity claims that "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Even if Jesus did die to atone for our sins that does not mean Jesus felt "responsible" for our sins thus Jesus was a sinner. That is a non sequitur.

A non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an invalid argument.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false (because there is a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion), but the argument nonetheless asserts the conclusion to be true and is thus fallacious. Formal fallacy - Wikipedia

It depends on one's view on religion. In another discussion I had here, someone was telling me that Jesus was tormented by all the sins he had to carry.

 

[Ajax]

Well, that is demonstrably untrue .. what is "character" ?
..and what is a "person"? etc. etc.

For example, you are talking to "me", and not the piece of meat called a brain.

Piece of meat? You couldn't be more wrong..
Our brain weighs 1,300 grams and contains approximately 1,000 nuclei, 2,000 major junctions, 200 important enzymes, 20,000 genes expressed in the brain, and 87 billion neurons. You is your brain.
With a malfunctioned brain you wouldn't be able to talk or hear. When a lobe of the brain is damaged, human behavior is damaged. For example, in Alzheimer's the degeneration of the brain creates a devastating change in behavior.
Sensation, motivation, logic, memories, decisions, perception and consciousness are all dependent on the brain. In fact your brain takes all the decisions for you, even if you are to turn left or right in the street. For example in the realm of romantic love there is no free will. Some may claim to want to get rid of their love, but ultimately fail, even going so far as to commit suicide.

Not at all .. all creatures have a personality .. a body without a conscious personality would
be useless.

And what happens when you faint? Hit your head? Being anesthetized before an operation? Die?
You loose consciousness. Where is the soul then?
Start reading about the brain please.

 

[Ajax]

The Bible is not the only scripture.
There is plenty of scriptural basis for belief in an "immortal soul" surviving consciously after death in the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

You don't have to believe that what Baha'u'llah wrote came from God, neither do I have to believe that the Bible came from God.

Yes sure, but again the main obstacle is how can you know that any religion is true. Writings from people who claimed they had revelations, (in any religion) are not evidence. So at the end, anyone believes (or not believe) whatever suit them. And as I told you before, belief is the acceptance of a claim, fact or possibility, regardless of whether it can be justified or not. If it can be justified, it is called knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

No but Christianity claims that "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Who cares what Christianity claims? Not me. Those claims are a Christian doctrine which comes from misinterpreting the Bible.
I asked you: Can you cite some verses from the Torah that say that someone had to pay for our sins?

It depends on one's view on religion. In another discussion I had here, someone was telling me that Jesus was tormented by all the sins he had to carry.

That's news to me. Then again, I don't know as much about Christianity as you apparently do.
I only know enough about Christianity to get myself in trouble. I also know enough to know I don't want to be a Christian.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes sure, but again the main obstacle is how can you know that any religion is true. Writings from people who claimed they had revelations, (in any religion) are not evidence. So at the end, anyone believes (or not believe) whatever suit them. And as I told you before, belief is the acceptance of a claim, fact or possibility, regardless of whether it can be justified or not. If it can be justified, it is called knowledge.

Yes, that's all true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

With a malfunctioned brain you wouldn't be able to talk or hear..

Possibly..

Sensation, motivation, logic, memories, decisions, perception and consciousness are all dependent on the brain..

So what?
You only assume that material things are all that are.
You can NOT deduce the spiritual does not exist by observation of the physical.
All you can deduce, is of the physical .. I would have thought that obvious.

In fact your brain takes all the decisions for you..

..no more than an assumption, I'm afraid.
That is NOT to say that the brain is not involved in decisions.

An analogy would be that without hardware, software cannot perform its function.

 

[Ajax]

So what?
You only assume that material things are all that are.
You can NOT deduce the spiritual does not exist by observation of the physical.
All you can deduce, is of the physical .. I would have thought that obvious.

I can deduce that spiritual more likely does not exist because I have no evidence for it's existence whatsoever, especially so when all the supposed functions of this spiritual (soul) are carried out by our brain.

..no more than an assumption, I'm afraid.

In fact your brain takes all the decisions for you

I'm sorry, but science doesn't really care if you think that it's an assumption. About 120 years ago people thought that it's an assumption that machines could fly.
Decision-making is a cognitive process of the human brain. The brain behaves as a complex system, and providing a model would be a convenient way to represent the complexity of the brain. Every decision includes some stages: each stage can be interpreted as a cognitive criterion. The brain controls the path by predicting the action’s result. The brain needs to know the criteria to perform its primary function as a predictor. It is known that the hippocampus stores the knowledge, and the prefrontal cortex approximates the goals; therefore, our study models the interactions between the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex by providing an algorithmic view. In our model, the effects of the brain regions controlling the path are replaced by the model predictive control. Now the neurological mechanisms of the decision-making process in the brain can be simulated. This capability allows us to Work on some sort of neural networks diseases such as neurodegenerative disease or some rehabilitations, which needs memory consolidation.
An Algorithmic Model of Decision Making in the Human Brain

Our brains reveal our choices before we’re even aware of them: study

Our brains reveal our choices before we’re even aware of them: study

www.unsw.edu.au

Brain makes decisions before you even know it Brain makes decisions before you even know it - Nature

 

[muhammad_isa]

Brain makes decisions before you even know it Brain makes decisions before you even know it - Nature

No .. science can not "know" .. it is purely through observation, that we can tell what the brain is doing.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that it is actually "the brain" making decisions.
It is purely an assumption.

..in any case, I don't expect you to take my word for it .. you already have your worldview.
..and it doesn't include anything other than physical observation.

 

[Ajax]

No .. science can not "know" .. it is purely through observation, that we can tell what the brain is doing.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that it is actually "the brain" making decisions.
It is purely an assumption.

No that's not correct...the observation leads to hypothesis and then to multiple testings which in case they are confirmed, then we know. Through initial observation we have learned everything we know.
It's pity though we can not observe anything at all for the supernatural, the spiritual and the soul.
But then again they are true ..assumptions only, from 2500 years ago..

 

[ajay0]

Why?

Because or actions and sins is finitive. Infinitive punishment for finitive sins is not just.

God is loving and just. So my conclusion is that eternal hell or annhilation of the soul do not exist. That is my belief

What is your thoughts about this?

Heavens and hellish dimensions are described in the Hindu and Buddhist texts as well, but they are not of an eternal nature.

It is the quality of karma or actions that determine the extent to which one experiences heaven or hell. But since karma or action is finite, so the experience of heaven or hell is also finite.

Eternal punishment is also incompatible with the innate divinity or Buddha nature within the soul or sentient being , and which means that everyone eventually attains enlightenment or Buddhahood, which is considered superior to all heavenly pleasures.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No that's not correct...the observation leads to hypothesis and then to multiple testings which in case they are confirmed, then we know..

That is your belief.
..perhaps you would like to show me a case where it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, that it is "the brain" that makes a decision.

I don't even know how such a thing could be proved.
Citing the existence of electrical activity in the brain when we make a decision, does not
prove that the activity STARTS in the brain, of course.

 

[Ajax]

That is your belief.
..perhaps you would like to show me a case where it is proved beyond reasonable doubt, that it is "the brain" that makes a decision.

I don't even know how such a thing could be proved.
Citing the existence of electrical activity in the brain when we make a decision, does not
prove that the activity STARTS in the brain, of course.

Unfortunately I'm not a neuroscientist, but from a neuroscientific standpoint, there is consensus from all neuroscientists that the brain is responsible for decision-making. Studies using various techniques have shown categorically the relationship between specific brain regions' activity and various types of decisions, proving that neural processes underlie decision-making.
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/03/our-brains-reveal-our-choices-before-were-even-aware-of-them--st[/URL]

However is all too well for you to say that "is not proved beyond reasonable doubt". I would be very glad to show us your alternative theory as to how the decisions are made. In case you say the mind, the spirit or the soul, I would appreciate a definition of them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Unfortunately I'm not a neuroscientist, but from a neuroscientific standpoint, there is consensus from all neuroscientists that the brain is responsible for decision-making. Studies using various techniques have shown categorically the relationship between specific brain regions' activity and various types of decisions, proving that neural processes underlie decision-making..

What do you mean by "underlie" ?
As I've already said, I'm aware that there is a "relationship between specific brain regions' activity and various types of decisions"..

I wouldn't expect anything less.

I would be very glad to show us your alternative theory as to how the decisions are made..

Decisions are made by people, and NOT brains.

The probability that mankind "knows all", is next to zero!
I do not hold to a materialist philosophy, and realise that life cannot be summed up as "billions of atoms".

 

[Ajax]

What do you mean by "underlie" ?

Supports, upholds..

Decisions are made by people, and NOT brains

Which part of people's body makes the decisions then? Or it is not a part of the body the decision maker?

The probability that mankind "knows all", is next to zero!

Agree.

I do not hold to a materialist philosophy, and realise that life cannot be summed up as "billions of atoms".

What else can be summed up as, then?
Again you just simply deny something, without offering an alternative idea.
By the way, biology is certainly not philosophy.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which part of people's body makes the decisions then?

You, yourself.
It is not decided by some electro-chemical reaction.
An unconscious "thing" cannot make a decision.

Using the computer analogy again, hardware does not make decisions without
the software effectively telling it to.

Software has an author .. even AI programs have an author.

What else can be summed up as, then?

Something more meaningful .. the records of history are more meaningful than atoms!

 

[Ajax]

You, yourself.

What do you mean by me, myself?
My feet, my hands, my stomach? Every part of our body performs specific functions.
Which part makes the decisions? Or it is not a part of our body the decision maker?

Something more meaningful ..

Like what?
And meaningful to whom? To you? What would you be satisfied with?

the records of history are more meaningful than atoms!

????

 

[Trailblazer]

Which part makes the decisions?

Your brain and mind.